***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ ***** | >SNA improves risk analysis in "new business" cases, by identifying | >non-obvious topology in emerging markets. Defensive techniques include | >pre-emptive branding to differentiate new entrant from failed player. How | >is firm or brand value (quantified by market) related to network identity | >vs. product identity? Addition and subtraction of assets on a balance | >sheet did not account for the network topology of those assets. How will | >asset topology be made visible to market metrics, so topologies have their | >own markets? | | I would like you to teach more about the ideas expressed in this | paragraph. Pointers? Not enough for my liking. A few to get started: **1998, Effect of Moore's Law on depreciation, for incumbents vs. new competitors (via HackThePlanet): http://www.contextmag.com/setFrameRedirect.asp?src=/archives/199806/technos ynth.asp: --- "To get your balance sheet right, you need to focus more on the context in which your assets operate. Information systems used to be relevant mostly internally~in accounting, process control, knowledge management, etc.But now the systems' valuations are based on their ability to help you with external issues~determining customer needs, advertising offerings, locating new raw materials. So, external factors can also radically change the value of your assets ... ... local phone companies have depreciated switches slowly, because their monopolistic positions and skill at regulatory politics gave them the freedom to defer the pain. As a result, when phone companies look at new ways of handling communications, they make their calculations based on balance sheets that assume signal processing is 1,000 times more expensive than it really is ... ... While the phone companies assume that they need to have switches that provide lots of intelligence at the core of their networks~to move calls, handle call waiting, and so on~a new style of communications has developed that assumes no intelligence in the network. ... users can finance new entrants into this kind of telecommunications market, by buying intelligent phone-like devices, in much the way they've financed the progress in the computer industry over the past two decades by buying personal computers. New phone companies don't need to raise risk capital and invest billions of dollars in central office switches to compete with AT&T." --- **2002, MIT Sloan on strategic implications of IT solution attributes (effectively, network topology): http://www.mit-smr.com/past/2002/smr4342.html : --- "A new applications-portfolio scorecard helps managers assess information infrastructure before making investments. Six key considerations are each IT application's role in strategy, whether the knowledge embodied in the application (say, salaries in a payroll application) is stable or evolving, how much change will be needed, where the application will be sourced, whether the data is proprietary or public, and the application's freedom from conformance defects. Those parameters differ for different functions. Managers may not need the latest software for a stable function. They may decide not to purchase a customized package, because it could be out of sync with the vendor's future software." --- The scorecard values prospective investments in the context of legacy investments by the buyer and/or peers. Note the emphasis on boundary definitions (proprietary or public), environmental stability, conformance (network compatibility, including regulatory compliance) and business rule stability. None of these scorecard considerations address features/functionality/benefits. All address risk accounting. **2002, Content Peering vs Content Delivery: http://www.isp-planet.com/business/2002/equinix.html : --- "... as content providers' business models change to subscription-based or upsell models (from ad-supported content), they are becoming more interested in access to the eyeballs owned by the major ISPs. As a result, these companies are starting to ink content deals in which both players link their networks, but no money changes hands. Adelson says the change is gradual but it is occurring. "For content providers, the value of a peer is based on the peer's number of eyeballs, not the size of its routing table," Adleson said. "Some international telcos have an entire nation of eyeballs and are especially valuable." Remember, content peering is not content delivery, at least according to Adelson. But it can achieve the same ends. "We're seeing Yahoo and Hotmail now peering directly through each other. Traffic through peering is better than an edge cache because replicating content from core to core is cheaper and more efficient than replicating content from edge to edge," ... --- Public IBX-based peering means Yahoo and Hotmail locate servers in the same data center, which are then directly connected by high-speed fiber. "Peering" means they no longer pay bandwidth charges for traffic between their networks. It's the equivalent of renting space on a trading floor located at O'Hare airport. Public exchange points like Equinix are "centralized", yet are not subject to the politics of telco "central offices". Instead of regulation, they are market-driven and self-organizing. Note the link between social topology and network traffic. Anonymous email provider Hotmail exchanges a lot of traffic with anonymous email provider Yahoo. Interesting. Shouldn't Yahoo users be sending mail to other Yahoo users? Or to users at various ISPs on the Internet? Yet enough Yahoo users correspond with Hotmail users to warrant a peering agreement. Cost savings on network traffic that is peered between Yahoo and Hotmail flows directly to the bottom line of both providers, increasing the cost of entry for potential competitors. Should this peering agreement appear on the balance sheet of either Yahoo or Hotmail? Consider a hypothetical competitor that tried to peer with Yahoo or Hotmail, but was rejected. Would their balance sheet break out traffic costs to non-peering competitors? What if traffic costs are also used as attention/demand metrics, to justify new investment? Have disclosure and accounting of traffic costs/benefits already been standardized? "Unaccounted" value exchange exerts increasing influence on "accounted" value exchange. The applications-portfolio scorecard above uses soft/uncounted risks to prioritize investment for hard/counted returns. There must be more examples out there. Rich _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.